Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
From:   Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
CC:     Kevin Yang <kevin_yang@realtek.com>,
        "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/4] wifi: rtw89: update to follow regulations of China and Thailand
Thread-Topic: [PATCH 0/4] wifi: rtw89: update to follow regulations of China
 and Thailand
Thread-Index: AQHZ8RNggOyofwedR0eyXs1E6/zFSbAuRy95gAAAXAA=
Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2023 07:42:16 +0000
Message-ID: <fb8ece3e7e44490c93e69654ca404984@realtek.com>
References: <20230927072156.26336-1-pkshih@realtek.com>
 <8734z0842w.fsf@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <8734z0842w.fsf@kernel.org>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-TW
Content-Language: zh-TW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 3:32 PM
> To: Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>
> Cc: Kevin Yang <kevin_yang@realtek.com>; linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] wifi: rtw89: update to follow regulations of China and Thailand
> 
> Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com> writes:
> 
> > Recently regulations of China and Thailand are changed, and these chips
> > have gotten new certifications, so apply new TX power tables.
> >
> > Zong-Zhe Yang (4):
> >   wifi: rtw89: regd: configure Thailand in regulation type
> >   wifi: rtw89: 8852c: update TX power tables to R67
> >   wifi: rtw89: 8852b: update TX power tables to R35
> >   wifi: rtw89: 8851b: update TX power tables to R34
> 
> I don't see patch 2 in patchwork but I did receive it to my
> kvalo@kernel.org adddress, maybe it was too big for the list?

Yes, I think so. 

I noted that patch 2 was received late from linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, so
I checked the size and found that was too big. I was trying to split the patch,
but minutes later I received it.

I think I should add a rule to my local script to check if patch size is larger
than 500k to prevent this again. 

> 
> But I can also apply that manually so no need to split that patch.
> 

Thank you.

Ping-Ke